PDA

View Full Version : Economics A tax hike for the wealthy won't kill growth.


Direckshun
11-09-2012, 12:32 PM
According to the CBO.

Right as Congress and the White House get down to negotiating over the fiscal cliff.

In the image below, you can see that of all the things you could extend to avoid the fiscal cliff, extending defense spending gets the biggest bang for your GDP buck.

By far the least bang? You guessed it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/11/cliff_components1.jpg

The Bush tax cuts. Especially for the wealthy.

Cutting them out, as a result, is probably the easiest means by which you can get a leg up on this massive deficit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/us-usa-fiscal-cbo-idUSBRE8A71D020121109

Tax hike for wealthy won't kill growth: CBO
By David Lawder and Kim Dixon
WASHINGTON | Thu Nov 8, 2012 9:03pm EST

(Reuters) - Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans, and maintaining rates for the less affluent, would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday, stepping into a dispute between Republicans and Democrats over how to resolve the so-called "fiscal cliff."

The report by the authoritative non-partisan arm of Congress is expected to fuel President Barack Obama's demand for higher taxes on the rich, part of his proposal to avoid the full impact of the expiring tax cuts and across-the-board spending reductions set to begin in early 2013 unless Congress acts.

Republicans argue that any tax increases would be devastating to the economy, particularly to small businesses, and to U.S. employment rates.

They have held firm to their position that none of the cuts, which originated during the administration of President George W. Bush, should be allowed to expire.

The CBO said the tax hikes for the wealthy would reduce job growth by around 200,000 jobs, much less than the 700,000 in job losses claimed by Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner.

Obama has also stuck to his position, with the White House reiterating on Thursday that the president sees his election victory on Tuesday as an endorsement by voters of his view on higher taxes for the affluent.

"One of the messages that was sent by the American people throughout this campaign is ... (they) clearly chose the president's view of making sure that the wealthiest Americans are asked to do a little bit more in the context of reducing our deficit in a balanced way," senior White House adviser David Plouffe said.

UNCERTAINTY SCARING MARKETS

The disagreement over the tax cuts is a major roadblock to any agreement in Congress, as it is coupled with the spending issues also on the table.

The lack of progress in ending the standoff is spooking global markets, which fell again Thursday in part because of political uncertainty in Washington.

The concern was underscored by the credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, which said on Thursday it sees an increasing chance that the U.S. economy will go over the cliff next year. But it also said it expects policymakers will probably compromise in time to avoid that outcome.

Analysts at the agency see about a 15 percent chance that political brinkmanship will push the world's largest economy over the fiscal cliff.

With only five days remaining before the U.S. Congress begins its post-election session, top political leaders in Washington provided little new assurance Thursday that they can act in time.

In an interview with ABC Television's Diane Sawyer, Boehner repeated what he has been saying for two years: "Raising tax rates is unacceptable. ... Frankly, it couldn't even pass the House. I'm not sure it could pass the Senate," he said, according to a transcript provided by the network.

The Democratic White House did not respond publicly to an initiative launched on Wednesday by Boehner to get talks going to avoid the cliff. The president is scheduled to make a statement on the economy Friday.

In the absence of concrete developments, the CBO report became the focus of argument Thursday. Reports by the CBO are designed to assist Congress in making difficult fiscal decisions, but they are also used by partisans to bolster their own arguments.

A statement from the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee said the CBO report "confirms that raising taxes on all taxpayers will result in fewer ‘help wanted' signs hanging in the windows of businesses across the country. Job creators agree, and have made it clear, that raising taxes will result in a weaker economy and fewer jobs for the millions of Americans struggling to find work."

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said the report "underscores the need to prevent the so-called fiscal cliff from harming American families and businesses, and to instead enact a balanced, long-term deficit reduction plan."

The term "balanced" plan is the Democratic code for tax increases.

The tax cuts were enacted during the Bush administration, but were made temporary, in part to reduce the appearance of exploding the already soaring U.S. deficit over the long term.

They were extended in 2010 for two years under an agreement between Republicans and Obama, after Republicans swept the mid-term elections that year and took control of the House.

That extension is running out, just as the trigger date arrives for automatic spending cuts Congress approved in 2011 as part of a deal to avoid a default on U.S. government debt.

VARIOUS SCENARIOS

The report from CBO laid out the economic effects of a number of options that lawmakers will consider as they deal with the fiscal cliff events.

The CBO said extending all of the tax cuts would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth next year by a little less than 1.5 percentage points.

If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said, growth would rise by 1.25 percent.

Wall Street estimates show third-quarter GDP growth was 2.8 percent. Unemployment is currently at 7.9 percent.

Eliminating the automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs would add back 0.75 percentage points of growth, as would extending an expiring payroll tax cut and long- term unemployment benefits that are expected to end next year, the CBO said.

But the office also warned of the consequences of taking such actions without reducing deficits that have run at $1 trillion in each of the past four years.

"CBO expects that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time," the report said.

Donger
11-09-2012, 12:39 PM
So, it "only" kills 200,000 jobs? How much revenue does it raise?

Taco John
11-09-2012, 01:10 PM
The CBO said the tax hikes for the wealthy would reduce job growth by around 200,000 jobs


LOL! VICTORY!

aturnis
11-09-2012, 01:17 PM
The CBO said the tax hikes for the wealthy would reduce job growth by around 200,000 jobs, much less than the 700,000 in job losses claimed by Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner.

Probably used Dick Morris for the math....

HonestChieffan
11-09-2012, 01:22 PM
The wealthy should want to pay more. It will serve as an example for all when everyone pays more.

And dont confuse a few jobs with doing your duty. The people who wont get those jobs probably dont have jobs now so its a win win

fan4ever
11-09-2012, 02:08 PM
The Republicans have done a terrible job of explaining how raising taxes on the rich is a red herring...it won't do a damn thing for the economy/deficit. It's insignificant to say the least, and will only have a negative effect, but what the hell...that pound of flesh is just too irresistable...and the have-nots are insatiable.

J Diddy
11-09-2012, 02:17 PM
The Republicans have done a terrible job of explaining how raising taxes on the rich is a red herring...it won't do a damn thing for the economy/deficit. It's insignificant to say the least, and will only have a negative effect, but what the hell...that pound of flesh is just too irresistable...and the have-nots are insatiable.

That's what I thought too until I found out R8ers isn't going to buy a new car because of it.

blaise
11-09-2012, 02:19 PM
So, it "only" kills 200,000 jobs? How much revenue does it raise?

Enough to make the less fortunate feel better about themselves for a minute.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 02:24 PM
Those Bush era tax cuts for the rich are gone. No fucking way Obama doesn't make that policy, no matter what.

mnchiefsguy
11-09-2012, 02:28 PM
Losing 200,000 jobs might not kill growth, but it sure as hell does nothing to help growth either, given that the revenue raised is enough to fund less than a week of federal spending.

TEX
11-09-2012, 02:29 PM
Losing 200,000 jobs might not kill growth, but it sure as hell does nothing to help growth either, given that the revenue raised is enough to fund less than a week of federal spending.

Exactly.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 02:30 PM
If we are going to willingly walk into a deeper recession then it needs to be across the board tax increases.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 02:38 PM
If we are going to willingly walk into a deeper recession then it needs to be across the board tax increases.We wont go into a recession asking the rich to pay the same tax rate as they did under Clinton.

You want a strong America. Strengthen the middle class, not the rich.

And didnt we have an election? WTF won? Was the tea party elected president and I fell asleep and missed it?

blaise
11-09-2012, 02:46 PM
We wont go into a recession asking the rich to pay the same tax rate as they did under Clinton.

You want a strong America. Strengthen the middle class, not the rich.

And didnt we have an election? WTF won? Was the tea party elected president and I fell asleep and missed it?

You realize people can still hold their same opinions on taxes even after the election took place, right?

mlyonsd
11-09-2012, 02:53 PM
We wont go into a recession asking the rich to pay the same tax rate as they did under Clinton.

You want a strong America. Strengthen the middle class, not the rich.

And didnt we have an election? WTF won? Was the tea party elected president and I fell asleep and missed it?

You can drop the talking points now.

Donger
11-09-2012, 02:54 PM
We wont go into a recession asking the rich to pay the same tax rate as they did under Clinton.

You want a strong America. Strengthen the middle class, not the rich.

And didnt we have an election? WTF won? Was the tea party elected president and I fell asleep and missed it?

I was just reading that the tax increase on "the rich" that Obama wants (35% to 39%?) will bring in another $70 billion annually maximum. And, according to the above article, cost 200,000 jobs. That sounds good to you?

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 02:59 PM
You realize people can still hold their same opinions on taxes even after the election took place, right?Yes of course.

We had an election. Obama said I'm going to give everyone a tax break up to the first $250K of income. If you make more than that, good for you. Romney said tax breaks for all. Obama won. The election decided this issue. Elections have consequences.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:00 PM
Yes of course.

We had an election. Obama said I'm going to give everyone a tax break up to the first $250K of income. If you make more than that, good for you. Romney said tax breaks for all. Obama won. The election decided this issue. Elections have consequences.

Just so we are clear: not raising taxes is now a "tax break"?

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:01 PM
I was just reading that the tax increase on "the rich" that Obama wants (35% to 39%?) will bring in another $70 billion annually maximum. And, according to the above article, cost 200,000 jobs. That sounds good to you?Since when do r's believe the CBO? I thought they were biased?

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:01 PM
We wont go into a recession asking the rich to pay the same tax rate as they did under Clinton.

You want a strong America. Strengthen the middle class, not the rich.

And didnt we have an election? WTF won? Was the tea party elected president and I fell asleep and missed it?

I hate to break this to you but we didn't elect a king. This might be the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. WTF are you talking about here?

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:02 PM
Yes of course.

We had an election. Obama said I'm going to give everyone a tax break up to the first $250K of income. If you make more than that, good for you. Romney said tax breaks for all. Obama won. The election decided this issue. Elections have consequences.

:spock:

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:04 PM
Just so we are clear: not raising taxes is now a "tax break"?It was a temporary tax break. A temporary one to stimulate the economy. Instead it blew up the deficit.

It's gone. You can debate all you want the merits of that position but its a done deal. Those tax breaks for the rich are gone. Obama cant allow those to stand and govern. His party will run away.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:05 PM
It was a temporary tax break. A temporary one to stimulate the economy. Instead it blew up the deficit.

It's gone. You can debate all you want the merits of that position but its a done deal. Those tax breaks for the rich are gone. Obama cant allow those to stand and govern. His party will run away.

You didn't answer my question, but I understand why.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:07 PM
It was a temporary tax break. A temporary one to stimulate the economy. Instead it blew up the deficit.

It's gone. You can debate all you want the merits of that position but its a done deal. Those tax breaks for the rich are gone. Obama cant allow those to stand and govern. His party will run away.

If that tax is imposed it won't be due to obama governing. It will be due to Boehner wresting concessions that make up for it.
obama doesn't govern, he can't. He doesn't have the stones for it and the Rs, and anyone else that ever sits across the bargaining table from the boy president, knows it.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 03:08 PM
It was a temporary tax break. A temporary one to stimulate the economy. Instead it blew up the deficit.

It's gone. You can debate all you want the merits of that position but its a done deal. Those tax breaks for the rich are gone. Obama cant allow those to stand and govern. His party will run away.

When they’re gone you’re going to see less money in your paycheck. Are you “rich” too?

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:09 PM
You can drop the talking points now.
It is not a talking point. It's a straight up pure fact.

This country build the largest middle class in the history of the world after WWII. It's the reason we gained so much power post WWII. The reason we are the economic leader of the world. No one is even close.

We strengthen the middle class, we strengthen our economy and America. It's the middle class, stupid.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:09 PM
Since when do r's believe the CBO? I thought they were biased?

Not I. So, you think that $70 billion annually with 200,000 lost jobs is worth socking it to "the rich" knowing that we have trillion dollar deficits?

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:12 PM
When they’re gone you’re going to see less money in your paycheck. Are you “rich” too?Working on it. :thumb:
Had an interview with the largest hedge fund in the world today.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:13 PM
Not I. So, you think that $70 billion annually with 200,000 lost jobs is worth socking it to "the rich" knowing that we have trillion dollar deficits?I'm not accepting your numbers as facts.

Brainiac
11-09-2012, 03:14 PM
Those Bush era tax cuts for the rich are gone. No ****ing way Obama doesn't make that policy, no matter what.
It would be nice if the Libs would at least call this what it really is, and stop with the misleading rhetoric.

12 years ago the tax rates were reduced for everyone. Those rates have been in place for 12 years. That is the status quo. I'd say it's the new normal, but it's over 12 years old, so it is just the normal.

The Republicans aren't asking for tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats are demanding tax increases on the rich. At least call it what it really is.

Trivers
11-09-2012, 03:17 PM
If we are going to willingly walk into a deeper recession then it needs to be across the board tax increases.

Rep!

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:18 PM
I'm not accepting your numbers as facts.

You don't believe the CBO?

How much revenue does Obama/Democrats claim that letting the reduction expire on "the rich" will generate? Surely you'd agree with that number, right?

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:19 PM
It would be nice if the Libs would at least call this what it really is, and stop with the misleading rhetoric.

12 years ago the tax rates were reduced for everyone. Those rates have been in place for 12 years. That is the status quo. I'd say it's the new normal, but it's over 12 years old, so it is just the normal.

The Republicans aren't asking for tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats are demanding tax increases on the rich. At least call it what it really is.We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:21 PM
We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, wasn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

Wow. As the opposition (or enemy to use Obama's vernacular), kindly go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw. Just because Obama won re-election doesn't mean that those who oppose his policies must suddenly agree with him. If you actually think, you are one fucked up person.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:22 PM
We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

Once again big guy, we did not elect a king. obama will have to kneel and give plenty to Boehner and the boys in exchange if the tax increases are to happen.
Don't worry though, kneeling is one of the few things obama has proven he can handle.

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:24 PM
Yes of course.

We had an election. Obama said I'm going to give everyone a tax break up to the first $250K of income. If you make more than that, good for you. Romney said tax breaks for all. Obama won. The election decided this issue. Elections have consequences.

The consequence is that Obama was elected. The consequence isn't that people have to start accepting everything he believes without disagreement.
That's some bizarre stuff, bro. Like weird and creepy.

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:24 PM
We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

The time for debate is over? Huh? Are you drunk?

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:25 PM
The consequence is that Obama was elected. The consequence isn't that people have to start accepting everything he believes without disagreement.
That's some bizarre stuff, bro. Like weird and creepy.

They have dropped their facade, true colors are showing.
They are in for many rude awakenings.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:26 PM
Wow. As the opposition (or enemy to use Obama's vernacular), kindly go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw. Just because Obama won re-election doesn't mean that those who oppose his policies must suddenly agree with him. If you actually think, you are one fucked up person.I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him. No one has to change their minds on whats right for the country. WTF are you getting that insane idea?

You are operating on a false assumption. You think the elections doesn't matter. Elections matter and they have consequences.

The majority of people in america said I want the econoomic and tax policy to be the one that Obama is for. You can try to fuck them all with a rusty chainsaw but it is still a fact. The majority has spoke.

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:26 PM
BRC has decreed. Let there be no more discussion on Obama's policies. It has been written, so let it be done.

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:27 PM
I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him. No one has to change their minds on whats right for the country. WTF are you getting that insane idea?

You are operating on a false assumption. You think the elections doesn't matter. Elections matter and they have consequences.

The majority of people in america said I want the econoomic and tax policy to be the one that Obama is for. You can try to **** them all with a rusty chainsaw but it is still a fact. The majority has spoke.


You're operating under some insane assumption that because Obama was elected people have to just blindly accept everything he plans to do.

It's just really strange shit, man.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 03:27 PM
We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NJxmpTMGhU0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:28 PM
The consequence is that Obama was elected. The consequence isn't that people have to start accepting everything he believes without disagreement.
That's some bizarre stuff, bro. Like weird and creepy.thats not what I'm saying at all. Nothing even close to that. You get to believe and think what ever you want.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:29 PM
I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him. No one has to change their minds on whats right for the country. WTF are you getting that insane idea?

You are operating on a false assumption. You think the elections doesn't matter. Elections matter and they have consequences.

The majority of people in america said I want the econoomic and tax policy to be the one that Obama is for. You can try to **** them all with a rusty chainsaw but it is still a fact. The majority has spoke.

I'm getting that from your posts above, James. I'm well-aware that the majority of Americans voted for Obama and his policies. You seem to be saying that the slightly less than half who didn't should just shut, not debate and go along with Obama, just because he won.

Is that not right? If it isn't right, please feel free to elaborate. In between checking out dead-drops, that is.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:30 PM
You're operating under some insane assumption that because Obama was elected people have to just blindly accept everything he plans to do.

It's just really strange shit, man.That is not my point at all. No one has to just accept everything. No one has to blindly fall in line. Where the fuck are you guys getting this idea? What did I say that you have lost the freedom of thought and expression?

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:30 PM
I'm getting that from your posts above, James. I'm well-aware that the majority of Americans voted for Obama and his policies. You seem to be saying that the slightly less than half who didn't should just shut, not debate and go along with Obama, just because he won.

Is that not right? If it isn't right, please feel free to elaborate. In between checking out dead-drops, that is.

LMAO

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:36 PM
I'm getting that from your posts above, James. I'm well-aware that the majority of Americans voted for Obama and his policies. You seem to be saying that the slightly less than half who didn't should just shut, not debate and go along with Obama, just because he won.

Is that not right? If it isn't right, please feel free to elaborate. In between checking out dead-drops, that is.On this issue, this major issue Obama gets his way. Thats why we vote. To decide big issues. Just like if Romeny would have won he and his buddies would have tried to dismantle Obamacare. Or would you feel that we needed to debate Obamacare for another year?

My point is that at the 10K feet view, the gap between the middle class and rich is getting wider and wider. Thats not good for America. The core of our success is a strong middle class. We should concentrate on strengthening our core.

Brainiac
11-09-2012, 03:38 PM
We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.
You completely ignored my point so that you could repeat your same bullshit rhetoric again.

My point is that you are being dishonest. These are not tax cuts for the rich. These are tax increases on the rich. Stop being such a pussy and call it what it really is.

Brainiac
11-09-2012, 03:39 PM
You completely ignored my point so that you could repeat your same bullshit rhetoric again.

My point is that you are being dishonest. These are not tax cuts for the rich. These are tax increases on the rich. Stop being such a pussy and call it what it really is.

In fact, if you had any balls at all, you'd say "We are increasing taxes on the rich because we got a fucking mandate to do it and ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!".

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:39 PM
On this issue, this major issue Obama gets his way. Thats why we vote. To decide big issues.

So, yes, you DO think that the opposition just roll over and suddenly accept Obama's position just because he won, correct?

Just like if Romeny would have won he and his buddies would have tried to dismantle Obamacare. Or would you feel that we needed to debate Obamacare for another year?

Well, if I'm reading you correctly, if Romney had won, the Democrats shouldn't oppose what Romney wanted to do with anything, right?

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:41 PM
Just so we are clear: not raising taxes is now a "tax break"?

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Brainiac
11-09-2012, 03:41 PM
I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him. No one has to change their minds on whats right for the country. WTF are you getting that insane idea?

You are operating on a false assumption. You think the elections doesn't matter. Elections matter and they have consequences.

The majority of people in america said I want the econoomic and tax policy to be the one that Obama is for. You can try to **** them all with a rusty chainsaw but it is still a fact. The majority has spoke.
Yes, that's why the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives.

Oh wait ....

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:42 PM
You completely ignored my point so that you could repeat your same bullshit rhetoric again.

My point is that you are being dishonest. These are not tax cuts for the rich. These are tax increases on the rich. Stop being such a pussy and call it what it really is.They are in reality, tax hikes on the rich.

Feel better.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 03:43 PM
On this issue, this major issue Obama gets his way. Thats why we vote. To decide big issues.

That's not what the Constitution states though. The House has the power of the purse and they still won a majority. Yeah, it was chiseled down but it held. That's the way we vote when we have three branches, with separate powers and checks and balances. Now, I am not saying they must not cooperate...they can if they want. But they have every right from the election to not give Obama everything he wants. I think the message was they want both sides to cooperate for the good of the country, otherwise the house would have lost the edge.

That being said, I support military cuts. I think everyone should share the tax burden though—not just the rich.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:44 PM
So, yes, you DO think that the opposition just roll over and suddenly accept Obama's position just because he won, correct?

Well, if I'm reading you correctly, if Romney had won, the Democrats shouldn't oppose what Romney wanted to do with anything, right?No, I dont.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:45 PM
That being said, I support military cuts. I think everyone should share the tax burden though—not just the rich.I agree. If they make a "grand deal" the pain has to be felt by everyone. No one group can be spared.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:46 PM
No, I dont.

Then, like I said, between now and your next shaken Martini, please elaborate what EXACTLY you meant.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 03:47 PM
I agree. If they make a "grand deal" the pain has to be felt by everyone. No one group can be spared.

And with no group being spared, real spending cuts must also be considered.

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:48 PM
That is not my point at all. No one has to just accept everything. No one has to blindly fall in line. Where the **** are you guys getting this idea? What did I say that you have lost the freedom of thought and expression?

Because vailpass expressed a thought about taxes and you were like, "WTF?!?!? The election is over."

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:50 PM
Then, like I said, between now and your next shaken Martini, please elaborate what EXACTLY you meant.If its not clear by now its not going to be. You misinterpreted my comments as some kind of advocacy for dictatorship. I don't see how you could interpret my comments that way. If my fault, my bad.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:51 PM
And with no group being spared, real spending cuts must also be considered.right everything is on the table. Military, entitlements etc. Nothing can be off the table if we are really going to ever have a balanced budget again.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:54 PM
If its not clear by now its not going to be. You misinterpreted my comments as some kind of advocacy for dictatorship. I don't see how you could interpret my comments that way. If my fault, my bad.

Because you wrote shit like this:

We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Please explain to me why anyone should read that and think that you AREN'T saying that you think the GOP should just STFU and do what Obama wants without any opposition or debate.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 03:57 PM
right everything is on the table. Military, entitlements etc. Nothing can be off the table if we are really going to ever have a balanced budget again.

WoW! I can't believe you agreed with that.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 04:03 PM
Then, like I said, between now and your next shaken Martini, please elaborate what EXACTLY you meant.

LMAO

stonedstooge
11-09-2012, 04:50 PM
Wow. As the opposition (or enemy to use Obama's vernacular), kindly go **** yourself with a rusty chainsaw. Just because Obama won re-election doesn't mean that those who oppose his policies must suddenly agree with him. If you actually think, you are one ****ed up person.

Damn Donger

Iowanian
11-09-2012, 06:02 PM
We wont go into a recession asking the rich to pay the same tax rate as they did under Clinton.

You want a strong America. Strengthen the middle class, not the rich.

And didnt we have an election? WTF won? Was the tea party elected president and I fell asleep and missed it?


The big red blowhard is such a big red douchebag.



Taxing the rich won't kill growth, it will just cut off one of it's legs.....

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:05 PM
So, it "only" kills 200,000 jobs?

Losing 200,000 jobs might not kill growth, but it sure as hell does nothing to help growth either, given that the revenue raised is enough to fund less than a week of federal spending.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

We've essentially got to the point we're at now, fiscally, because we've given immense tax relief to the wealthy (as well as everybody else, but the wealthy reap the biggest benefits) and we have a ton of federal spending that a shit ton of jobs rely on, such as teachers and the military complex.

The "Grand Bargain," should we actually achieve one, is going to cut down jobs in one way or another, because it's going to eat into these realities.

So the goal is to cut down the deficit in ways that will harm the GDP the least, and unemployment the least. That's what the CBO is recommending.

And, well... 200,000 jobs by making sure the wealthy get far less tax relief than they've been enjoying, either by repealing Bush's tax cuts or by cutting down on deductions hardcore, is very do-able when you consider all other options. We added 171,000 jobs to the economy in October alone.

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:07 PM
I was just reading that the tax increase on "the rich" that Obama wants (35% to 39%?) will bring in another $70 billion annually maximum. And, according to the above article, cost 200,000 jobs. That sounds good to you?

You're looking to get responsible, fiscally, while administering the least amount of damage to the economy.

Repealing tax cuts to the rich is THE least damaging approach. CBO-confirmed.

stonedstooge
11-09-2012, 07:08 PM
You're looking at it the wrong way.

We've essentially got to the point we're at now, fiscally, because we've given immense tax relief to the wealthy (as well as everybody else, but the wealthy reap the biggest benefits) and we have a ton of federal spending that a shit ton of jobs rely on, such as teachers and the military complex.

The "Grand Bargain," should we actually achieve one, is going to cut down jobs in one way or another, because it's going to eat into these realities.

So the goal is to cut down the deficit in ways that will harm the GDP the least, and unemployment the least. That's what the CBO is recommending.

And, well... 200,000 jobs by making sure the wealthy get far less tax relief than they've been enjoying, either by repealing Bush's tax cuts or by cutting down on deductions hardcore, is very do-able when you consider all other options. We added 171,000 jobs to the economy in October alone.
300 plus full-time jobs factory in my hometown announced yesterday it's shutting down and "them jobs ain't coming back no more"
Been a mainstay in that community for over 30 years

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:09 PM
It would be nice if the Libs would at least call this what it really is, and stop with the misleading rhetoric.

It was designed and periodically extended to be temporary.

At no time was a law passed to make them permanent.

Call that whatever you wish, I don't give a shit. But the vacation's close to being over.

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:10 PM
300 plus full-time jobs factory in my hometown announced yesterday it's shutting down and "them jobs ain't coming back no more"
Been a mainstay in that community for over 30 years

I'm sorry to hear that. That's got to be heartbreaking for the community.

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:10 PM
Wow. As the opposition (or enemy to use Obama's vernacular), kindly go **** yourself with a rusty chainsaw. Just because Obama won re-election doesn't mean that those who oppose his policies must suddenly agree with him. If you actually think, you are one ****ed up person.

Calm down. Christ.

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:12 PM
These are not tax cuts for the rich. These are tax increases on the rich.

They are the expiration of temporary tax cuts for the rich.

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:13 PM
Yes, that's why the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives.

Oh wait ....

Democrats actually received more House votes than Republicans.

So, you were saying?

stonedstooge
11-09-2012, 07:14 PM
I'm sorry to hear that. That's got to be heartbreaking for the community.

A lot of people raised their families with the company. It was the top rate type of factory job you could have in my community.

CLX
11-09-2012, 07:14 PM
right everything is on the table. Military, entitlements etc. Nothing can be off the table if we are really going to ever have a balanced budget again.

A balanced budget again? In my research every budget for the past 40 years has been a deficit budget. Coming in under the limit with borrowed money is not a balanced budget, we still were borrowing money.

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:15 PM
A lot of people raised their families with the company. It was the top rate type of factory job you could have in my community.

What kind of factory was it?

Where are the jobs being moved?

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:16 PM
A balanced budget again? In my research every budget for the past 40 years has been a deficit budget. Coming in under the limit with borrowed money is not a balanced budget, we still were borrowing money.

His point stands -- we had our fiscal house in outstanding order at the turn of the century.

We eroded that over the past decade.

stonedstooge
11-09-2012, 07:21 PM
What kind of factory was it?

Where are the jobs being moved?
Not sure the company has stated why, other than a generic restructuring statement. It opened in 1971. Over 40 years. Damn

jjjayb
11-09-2012, 07:40 PM
Yes of course.

We had an election. Obama said I'm going to give everyone a tax break up to the first $250K of income. If you make more than that, good for you. Romney said tax breaks for all. Obama won. The election decided this issue. Elections have consequences.

Guess they should have voted the Republicans out of power in the house then. LMAO

stonedstooge
11-09-2012, 07:45 PM
What kind of factory was it?

Where are the jobs being moved?

Back in the early 90's, we even created a field of secondary school vocational training specific for the factories within the county. We tried to treat them well.

Shaid
11-09-2012, 07:49 PM
Guess they should have voted the Republicans out of power in the house then. LMAO

LMAO Stupid Voters! :hmmm: :shake:

Direckshun
11-09-2012, 07:57 PM
Guess they should have voted the Republicans out of power in the house then. LMAO

More voters voted for Democrats in the House than for Republicans nationwide.

It's not the voters' faults the GOP slants the game deep in their favor with intense gerrymandering.

Baby Lee
11-09-2012, 08:56 PM
It is not a talking point. It's a straight up pure fact.

This country build the largest middle class in the history of the world after WWII. It's the reason we gained so much power post WWII. The reason we are the economic leader of the world. No one is even close.

We strengthen the middle class, we strengthen our economy and America. It's the middle class, stupid.

Maybe if the rest of the world were bombed to the stone age again, we could be the sole provisioner of their recovery goods for a nice while.

Our post WWII prosperity wasn't a function of high taxation. It was us being the only industrialized entity around to feed, clothe and equip the world.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 08:59 PM
WoW! I can't believe you agreed with that.Why is that? I've been saying for months that every thing has to be on the table.

Xanathol
11-10-2012, 02:06 AM
His point stands -- we had our fiscal house in outstanding order at the turn of the century.

We eroded that over the past decade.
Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.

mlyonsd
11-10-2012, 05:04 AM
Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.
Knock that common sense shit off. Haven't you heard? The retards have a mandate.

Comrade Crapski
11-10-2012, 05:16 AM
Elections have consequences.

I'm gonna remind you of that when your taxes go through the roof.

mlyonsd
11-10-2012, 05:22 AM
This argument is silly. If tax cuts are in order they are in order for everyone, not just one class.

HonestChieffan
11-10-2012, 05:23 AM
Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.

You fail to understand the real objective. The idea we will generate more revenue is not in play. Nor does it have any hope of contributing to a lower deficit. Democrats know this very well. The total rvenue projected is insignificant and the likely hood it will slow growth is real even using Obamas numbers. So why then? Because Mr Obama and many others do see successful people as a resouce for funds. That is all. It is a cover rather than doing what needs to be done and get more people back paying taxes at all levels.

Politics makes up its own math. You dont need to understand it. It is measureable however. And therein lies hope for real change if its not too late

BigRedChief
11-10-2012, 07:15 AM
Because you wrote shit like this:

We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Please explain to me why anyone should read that and think that you AREN'T saying that you think the GOP should just STFU and do what Obama wants without any opposition or debate.I watched the news today and lo and behold there was the President on TV saying......We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

:hmmm: Looks like I'm not the only one thinking that elections decide stuff. So feel free to start another thread on how Obama is advocating Kingship for himself.

Donger
11-10-2012, 07:24 AM
I watched the news today and lo and behold there was the President on TV saying......We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

:hmmm: Looks like I'm not the only one thinking that elections decide stuff. So feel free to start another thread on how Obama is advocating Kingship for himself.

Oh, I've never been under the impression that Obama isn't an arrogant prick. He's actually said those same words before. If he thinks that just because he won the election that all dissent and disagreement must be over, he's wrong.

And so are you.

penchief
11-10-2012, 07:32 AM
Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.

Here's some history, too. Over three decades of Trickle Down Class Warfare have yielded the exact opposite results that it's proponents continue to promise it will produce. How long should the middle class and the working class continue to buy into this scam? Where are the jobs these tax cuts were supposed to produce?

There is a direct correlation between Trickle Down and the continued concentration of wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer. That disparity is no coincidence.

The antidote to that illness is not more poison. We've had over thirty years of doing the same thing with horrilbe results. Republicans are nuts to think that the American people should keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.

The proof is in the pudding.

Chief Henry
11-10-2012, 07:37 AM
obama says his will plan will cut 4 $trillion from the 16+ Trillion deficit.

ROFL


The CBO states that his plan will kill 200,000 jobs and the major accounting firm and business consulting experts "Ernst @ Young" said his plan would kill 700,000 jobs.

How I long for the days of 4.60% unemployment........RECORD 52 months of private job growth and a robust economy of 3.50 % GDP. We had all of that on January 3rd of 2007. But then Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over the House and Senate.

patteeu
11-10-2012, 10:45 AM
You're looking at it the wrong way.

We've essentially got to the point we're at now, fiscally, because we've given immense tax relief to the wealthy (as well as everybody else, but the wealthy reap the biggest benefits) and we have a ton of federal spending that a shit ton of jobs rely on, such as teachers and the military complex.

The "Grand Bargain," should we actually achieve one, is going to cut down jobs in one way or another, because it's going to eat into these realities.

So the goal is to cut down the deficit in ways that will harm the GDP the least, and unemployment the least. That's what the CBO is recommending.

And, well... 200,000 jobs by making sure the wealthy get far less tax relief than they've been enjoying, either by repealing Bush's tax cuts or by cutting down on deductions hardcore, is very do-able when you consider all other options. We added 171,000 jobs to the economy in October alone.

The CBO doesn't recommend. They do analysis based on the assumptions they're instructed to use.

Remember when the CBO said that Obamacare would reduce the deficit? And then later, using different assumptions, they said that it increased the deficit? Good times.

patteeu
11-10-2012, 10:50 AM
His point stands -- we had our fiscal house in outstanding order at the turn of the century.

We eroded that over the past decade.

At the turn of the century, the dot-com bubble was bursting sending our economy into recession. The foundation for the disastrous housing bubble had been laid. And al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into an international threat capable of killing 3000 people on our own soil. Those were the good ol' days.

patteeu
11-10-2012, 10:53 AM
Here's some history, too. Over three decades of Trickle Down Class Warfare have yielded the exact opposite results that it's proponents continue to promise it will produce. How long should the middle class and the working class continue to buy into this scam? Where are the jobs these tax cuts were supposed to produce?

There is a direct correlation between Trickle Down and the continued concentration of wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer. That disparity is no coincidence.

The antidote to that illness is not more poison. We've had over thirty years of doing the same thing with horrilbe results. Republicans are nuts to think that the American people should keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.

The proof is in the pudding.

When you allow the tax cuts to expire, you'll see the current jobs that are dependent on that crazy right wing policy. Fortunately for the country, we've already benefitted for a decade from them and I don't think we'll have to give the full benefit back.

Taco John
11-10-2012, 11:09 AM
We already achieved a grand bargain. Only they're calling it a "fiscal cliff." Democrats get higher taxes. Republicans get cuts across the board.

Walk away.

blaise
11-10-2012, 11:56 AM
I watched the news today and lo and behold there was the President on TV saying......We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

:hmmm: Looks like I'm not the only one thinking that elections decide stuff. So feel free to start another thread on how Obama is advocating Kingship for himself.

The election decided the President. The election didn't require that people stop disagreeing with him.

J Diddy
11-10-2012, 12:23 PM
We already achieved a grand bargain. Only they're calling it a "fiscal cliff." Democrats get higher taxes. Republicans get cuts across the board.

Walk away.

I would have to agree with this.

J Diddy
11-10-2012, 12:26 PM
The election decided the President. The election didn't require that people stop disagreeing with him.

Absolutely. You have a right to disagree. However, it turns out, you are in the minority.

blaise
11-10-2012, 12:58 PM
Absolutely. You have a right to disagree. However, it turns out, you are in the minority.

That's not what I was talking about, but I guess thanks for typing words.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 07:50 PM
Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

It's true that Clinton pushed the measure that eventually caused the bubble that cratered the market. I'm not sure why that's supposed to be a reply to what I'm talking about, but whatever.

It should be noted that the bubble expanded for eight years under W's watch, however, who did nothing to reduce it or even slow it down.

Take the Obama administration, for instance, which has recognized that student loans is the next potential bursting bubble, so took measures to reduce the risk of that by making them more manageable.

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.

All more or less true.

The CBO, however, has concluded that the fallout from adopting the Clinton tax rates for the highest bracket would cause very little economic damage.

200,000 jobs can be made up for in the span of a couple months in our current recovery.

BigRedChief
11-10-2012, 10:10 PM
The election didn't require that people stop disagreeing with him.And who said it did.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:22 PM
The CBO doesn't recommend. They do analysis based on the assumptions they're instructed to use.

If you want to dispute their results, be my guest.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:23 PM
At the turn of the century, the dot-com bubble was bursting sending our economy into recession. The foundation for the disastrous housing bubble had been laid.

Truth.

blaise
11-11-2012, 05:53 AM
And who said it did.

You are, basically.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 09:26 PM
We have debated this for two years. We had an election. The time for debate is over. The people voted.

Obama was very clear what his plan was, didn't he? Did he not make it perfectly clear?

The R's win the election in 2016, you can put them back in. Elections have consequences.

Except only the House can originate revenue bills that includes taxes—NOT the President. The House held it's majority. They don't have to do what Obama wants. It may be political suicide but they don't have to give him anything. It's up the House–not the President. Even under Reagan, he had to get the House to go along....and later he gave them their spending increases on things he didn't agree with to get cooperation for his military buildup.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 09:29 PM
Absolutely. You have a right to disagree. However, it turns out, you are in the minority.

Nope. Only regarding the Presidents duties and powers, which do not include revenue bills or taxes. Read the Constitution to understand your own govt, its form and how it functions. You're the minority in the House—not the Republicans. We don't have one man rule in this country. Not yet anyway.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 09:30 PM
Maybe if the rest of the world were bombed to the stone age again, we could be the sole provisioner of their recovery goods for a nice while.

Our post WWII prosperity wasn't a function of high taxation. It was us being the only industrialized entity around to feed, clothe and equip the world.

Right after WWII there are very large spending cuts in the Federal govt which lead to economic recovery.

Hoover
11-12-2012, 09:31 PM
200k jobs lost in just 2013?

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 09:32 PM
200k jobs lost in just 2013?

Has 2013 happened yet?